DOCSLIB.ORG

Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions John M. Martinis and Kevin Osborne National Institute of Standards and Technology, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3328, USA Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions 2 1. Introduction Josephson junctions are good candidates for the construction of quantum bits (qubits) for a quantum computer[1]. This system is attractive because the low dissipation inherent to superconductors make possible, in principle, long coherence times. In addition, because complex superconducting circuits can be microfabricated using integrated-circuit processing techniques, scaling to a large number of qubits should be relatively straightforward. Given the initial success of several types of Josephson qubits[2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 8, 10], a question naturally arises: what are the essential components that must be tested, understood, and improved for eventual construction of a Josephson quantum computer? In this paper we focus on the physics of the Josephson junction because, being nonlinear, it is the fundamental circuit element that is needed for the appearance of usable qubit states. In contrast, linear circuit elements such as capacitors and inductors can form low-dissipation superconducting resonators, but are unusable for qubits because the energy-level spacings are degenerate. The nonlinearity of the Josephson inductance breaks the degeneracy of the energy level spacings, allowing dynamics of the system to be restricted to only the two qubit states. The Josephson junction is a remarkable nonlinear element because it combines negligible dissipation with extremely large nonlinearity - the change of the qubit state by only one photon in energy can modify the junction inductance by order unity! Most theoretical and experimental investigations with Josephson qubits assume perfect junction behavior. Is such an assumption valid? Recent experiments by our group indicate that coherence is limited by microwave-frequency fluctuations in the critical current of the junction[10]. A deeper understanding of the junction physics is thus needed so that nonideal behavior can be more readily identi¯ed, understood, and eliminated. Although we will not discuss speci¯c imperfections of junctions in this paper, we want to describe a clear and precise model of the Josephson junction that can give an intuitive understanding of the Josephson e®ect. This is especially needed since textbooks do not typically derive the Josephson e®ect from a microscopic viewpoint. As standard calculations use only perturbation theory, we will also need to introduce an exact description of the Josephson e®ect via the mesoscopic theory of quasiparticle bound-states. The outline of the paper is as follows. We ¯rst describe in Sec. 2 the nonlinear Josephson inductance. In Sec. 3 we discuss the three types of qubit circuits, and show how these circuits use this nonlinearity in unique manners. We then give a brief derivation of the BCS theory in Sec. 4, highlighting the appearance of the macroscopic phase parameter. The Josephson equations are derived in Sec. 5 using standard ¯rst and second order perturbation theory that describe quasiparticle and Cooper-pair tunneling. An exact calculation of the Josephson e®ect then follows in Sec. 6 using the quasiparticle bound-state theory. Section 7 expands upon this theory and describes quasiparticle excitations as transitions from the ground to excited bound states from Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions 3 φ φ L R IJ V Figure 1. Schematic diagram of a Josephson junction connected to a bias voltage V . The Josephson current is given by IJ = I0 sin ±, where ± = ÁL ¡ ÁR is the di®erence in the superconducting phase across the junction. nonadiabatic changes in the bias. Although quasiparticle current is typically calculated only for a constant DC voltage, the advantage to this approach is seen in Sec. 8, where we qualitatively describe quasiparticle tunneling with AC voltage excitations, as appropriate for the qubit state. This section describes how the Josephson qubit is typically insensitive to quasiparticle damping, even to the extent that a phase qubit can be constructed from microbridge junctions. 2. The Nonlinear Josephson Inductance A Josephson tunnel junction is formed by separating two superconducting electrodes with an insulator thin enough so that electrons can quantum-mechanically tunnel through the barrier, as illustrated in Fig. 1 . The Josephson e®ect describes the supercurrent IJ that flows through the junction according to the classical equations IJ = I0 sin ± (1) © d± V = 0 ; (2) 2¼ dt where ©0 = h=2e is the superconducting flux quantum, I0 is the critical-current parameter of the junction, and ± = ÁL ¡ ÁR and V are respectively the superconducting phase di®erence and voltage across the junction. The dynamical behavior of these two equations can be understood by ¯rst di®erentiating Eq. 1 and replacing d±=dt with V according to Eq. 2 dIJ 2¼ = I0 cos ± V: (3) dt ©0 With dIJ =dt proportional to V , this equation describes an inductor. By de¯ning a Josephson inductance LJ according to the conventional de¯nition V = LJ dIJ =dt, one ¯nds ©0 LJ = : (4) 2¼I0 cos ± The 1= cos ± term reveals that this inductance is nonlinear. It becomes large as ± ! ¼=2, and is negative for ¼=2 < ± < 3¼=2. The inductance at zero bias is LJ0 = ©0=2¼I0. Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions 4 An inductance describes an energy-conserving circuit element. The energy stored in the junction is given by ZZ UJ = IJ V dt (5) ZZ © d± = I sin ± 0 dt (6) 0 2¼ dt ZZ I © = 0 0 sin ± d± (7) 2¼ I © = ¡ 0 0 cos ±: (8) 2¼ This calculation of energy can be generalized for other nondissipative circuit elements. For example, a similar calculation for a current bias gives Ubias = ¡(I©0=2¼)±. Conversely, if a circuit element has an energy U(±), then the current-phase relationship of the element, analogous to Eq. 1, is 2¼ @U(±) IJ (±) = : (9) ©0 @± A generalized Josephson inductance can be also be found from the second derivative of U , µ ¶ 1 2¼ 2 @2U(±) = 2 : (10) LJ ©0 @± The classical and quantum behavior of a particular circuit is described by a Hamiltonian, which of course depends on the exact circuit con¯guration. The procedure for writing down a Hamiltonian for an arbitrary circuit has been described in detail in a prior publication[11]. The general form of the Hamiltonian for the Josephson e®ect is HJ = UJ . 3. Phase, Flux, and Charge Qubits A Josephson qubit can be understood as a nonlinear resonator formed from the Josephson inductance and its junction capacitance. nonlinearity is crucial because the system has many energy levels, but the operating space of the qubit must be restricted to only the two lowest states. The system is e®ectively a two-state system[12] only if the frequency !10 that drives transitions between the qubit states 0 Ã! 1 is di®erent from the frequency !21 for transitions 1 Ã! 2. We review here three di®erent ways that these nonlinear resonators can be made, and which are named as phase, flux, or charge qubits. The circuit for the phase-qubit circuit is drawn in Fig. 2(a). Its Hamiltonian is 1 I © I© H = Qb2 ¡ 0 0 cos ±b¡ 0 ±;b (11) 2C 2¼ 2¼ where C is the capacitance of the tunnel junction. A similar circuit is drawn for the flux-qubit circuit in Fig. 2(b), and its Hamiltonian is 1 I © 1 © H = Qb2 ¡ 0 0 cos ±b+ (© ¡ 0 ±b)2: (12) 2C 2¼ 2L 2¼ Superconducting Qubits and the Physics of Josephson Junctions 5 (a) Phase(b) Flux (c) Charge E2 E1 E0 → ≅ <δ2> I I0 L LJ0 large L=4LJ0 Figure 2. Comparison of the phase (a), flux (b), and charge (c) qubits. Top row illustrates the circuits, with each \X" symbol representing a Josephson junction. Middle row has a plot of the Hamiltonian potential (thick line), showing qualitatively di®erent shapes for three qubit types. Ground-state wavefunction is also indicated (thin line). Key circuit parameters are listed in next row. Lowest row indicates variations on the basic circuit, as discussed in text. The lowest three energy levels are illustrated for the phase qubit (dotted lines). The charge qubit has a Hamiltonian similar to that in Eq. 11, and is described elsewhere in this publication. Here we have explicitly used notation appropriate for a quantum description, with operators charge Qb and phase di®erence ±b that obey a commutation relationship [±;b Qb] = 2ei. Note that the phase and flux qubit Hamiltonians are equivalent for L ! 1 and I = ©=L, which corresponds to a current bias created from an inductor with in¯nite impedance. The commutation relationship between ±b and Qb imply that these quantities must be described by a wavefunction. The characteristic widths of this wavefunction are controlled by the energy scales of the system, the charging energy of the junction 2 EC = e =2C and the Josephson energy EJ = I0©0=2¼. When the energy of the junction b dominates, EJ À EC , then ± can almost be described classically and the width of its wavefunction is small h±b2 ¡ h±bi2i ¿ 1. In contrast, the uncertainty in charge is large hQb2 ¡ hQbi2i À (2e)2. If the Josephson inductance is constant over the width of the ±b wavefunction, then a circuit is well described as a LJ -C harmonic oscillator, and the qubit states are degenerate and not usable. Usable states are created only when the Josephson inductance changes over the ±-wavefunction. The most straightforward way for the wavefunction to be a®ected by the Josephson b nonlinearity is for ± to have a large width , which occurs when EJ » EC . A practical implementation of this circuit is illustrated in Fig 2(c), where a double-junction Coulomb blockade device is used instead of a single junction to isolate dissipation from the leads[2, 4].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Direct Dispersive Monitoring of Charge Parity in Offset-Charge
    PHYSICAL REVIEW APPLIED 12, 014052 (2019) Direct Dispersive Monitoring of Charge Parity in Offset-Charge-Sensitive Transmons K. Serniak,* S. Diamond, M. Hays, V. Fatemi, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, R.J. Schoelkopf, and M.H. Devoret† Department of Applied Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA (Received 29 March 2019; revised manuscript received 20 June 2019; published 26 July 2019) A striking characteristic of superconducting circuits is that their eigenspectra and intermode coupling strengths are well predicted by simple Hamiltonians representing combinations of quantum-circuit ele- ments. Of particular interest is the Cooper-pair-box Hamiltonian used to describe the eigenspectra of transmon qubits, which can depend strongly on the offset-charge difference across the Josephson element. Notably, this offset-charge dependence can also be observed in the dispersive coupling between an ancil- lary readout mode and a transmon fabricated in the offset-charge-sensitive (OCS) regime. We utilize this effect to achieve direct high-fidelity dispersive readout of the joint plasmon and charge-parity state of an OCS transmon, which enables efficient detection of charge fluctuations and nonequilibrium-quasiparticle dynamics. Specifically, we show that additional high-frequency filtering can extend the charge-parity life- time of our device by 2 orders of magnitude, resulting in a significantly improved energy relaxation time T1 ∼ 200 μs. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.12.014052 I. INTRODUCTION charge states, like a usual transmon but with measurable offset-charge dispersion of the transition frequencies The basic building blocks of quantum circuits—e.g., between eigenstates, like a Cooper-pair box. This defines capacitors, inductors, and nonlinear elements such as what we refer to as the offset-charge-sensitive (OCS) Josephson junctions [1] and electromechanical trans- transmon regime.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scanning Transmon Qubit for Strong Coupling Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics
    ARTICLE Received 8 Mar 2013 | Accepted 10 May 2013 | Published 7 Jun 2013 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2991 A scanning transmon qubit for strong coupling circuit quantum electrodynamics W. E. Shanks1, D. L. Underwood1 & A. A. Houck1 Like a quantum computer designed for a particular class of problems, a quantum simulator enables quantitative modelling of quantum systems that is computationally intractable with a classical computer. Superconducting circuits have recently been investigated as an alternative system in which microwave photons confined to a lattice of coupled resonators act as the particles under study, with qubits coupled to the resonators producing effective photon–photon interactions. Such a system promises insight into the non-equilibrium physics of interacting bosons, but new tools are needed to understand this complex behaviour. Here we demonstrate the operation of a scanning transmon qubit and propose its use as a local probe of photon number within a superconducting resonator lattice. We map the coupling strength of the qubit to a resonator on a separate chip and show that the system reaches the strong coupling regime over a wide scanning area. 1 Department of Electrical Engineering, Princeton University, Olden Street, Princeton 08550, New Jersey, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to W.E.S. (email: [email protected]). NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | 4:1991 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2991 | www.nature.com/naturecommunications 1 & 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved. ARTICLE NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2991 ver the past decade, the study of quantum physics using In this work, we describe a scanning superconducting superconducting circuits has seen rapid advances in qubit and demonstrate its coupling to a superconducting CPWR Osample design and measurement techniques1–3.
    [Show full text]
  • Control of the Geometric Phase in Two Open Qubit–Cavity Systems Linked by a Waveguide
    entropy Article Control of the Geometric Phase in Two Open Qubit–Cavity Systems Linked by a Waveguide Abdel-Baset A. Mohamed 1,2 and Ibtisam Masmali 3,* 1 Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Humanities, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Aflaj 710-11912, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut 71516, Egypt 3 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Jazan University, Gizan 82785, Saudi Arabia * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 28 November 2019; Accepted: 8 January 2020; Published: 10 January 2020 Abstract: We explore the geometric phase in a system of two non-interacting qubits embedded in two separated open cavities linked via an optical fiber and leaking photons to the external environment. The dynamical behavior of the generated geometric phase is investigated under the physical parameter effects of the coupling constants of both the qubit–cavity and the fiber–cavity interactions, the resonance/off-resonance qubit–field interactions, and the cavity dissipations. It is found that these the physical parameters lead to generating, disappearing and controlling the number and the shape (instantaneous/rectangular) of the geometric phase oscillations. Keywords: geometric phase; cavity damping; optical fiber 1. Introduction The mathematical manipulations of the open quantum systems, of the qubit–field interactions, depend on the ability of solving the master-damping [1] and intrinsic-decoherence [2] equations, analytically/numerically. To remedy the problems of these manipulations, the quantum phenomena of the open systems were studied for limited physical circumstances [3–7]. The quantum geometric phase is a basic intrinsic feature in quantum mechanics that is used as the basis of quantum computation [8].
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Implementations of Quantum Computing
    Physical implementations of quantum computing Andrew Daley Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Pittsburgh Overview (Review) Introduction • DiVincenzo Criteria • Characterising coherence times Survey of possible qubits and implementations • Neutral atoms • Trapped ions • Colour centres (e.g., NV-centers in diamond) • Electron spins (e.g,. quantum dots) • Superconducting qubits (charge, phase, flux) • NMR • Optical qubits • Topological qubits Back to the DiVincenzo Criteria: Requirements for the implementation of quantum computation 1. A scalable physical system with well characterized qubits 1 | i 0 | i 2. The ability to initialize the state of the qubits to a simple fiducial state, such as |000...⟩ 1 | i 0 | i 3. Long relevant decoherence times, much longer than the gate operation time 4. A “universal” set of quantum gates control target (single qubit rotations + C-Not / C-Phase / .... ) U U 5. A qubit-specific measurement capability D. P. DiVincenzo “The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation”, Fortschritte der Physik 48, p. 771 (2000) arXiv:quant-ph/0002077 Neutral atoms Advantages: • Production of large quantum registers • Massive parallelism in gate operations • Long coherence times (>20s) Difficulties: • Gates typically slower than other implementations (~ms for collisional gates) (Rydberg gates can be somewhat faster) • Individual addressing (but recently achieved) Quantum Register with neutral atoms in an optical lattice 0 1 | | Requirements: • Long lived storage of qubits • Addressing of individual qubits • Single and two-qubit gate operations • Array of singly occupied sites • Qubits encoded in long-lived internal states (alkali atoms - electronic states, e.g., hyperfine) • Single-qubit via laser/RF field coupling • Entanglement via Rydberg gates or via controlled collisions in a spin-dependent lattice Rb: Group II Atoms 87Sr (I=9/2): Extensively developed, 1 • P1 e.g., optical clocks 3 • Degenerate gases of Yb, Ca,..
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Levels of the Transmon Qubit
    Higher Levels of the Transmon Qubit MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNirLOGY by AUG 15 2014 Samuel James Bader LIBRARIES Submitted to the Department of Physics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Physics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2014 @ Samuel James Bader, MMXIV. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Author........ .. ----.-....-....-....-....-.....-....-......... Department of Physics Signature redacted May 9, 201 I Certified by ... Terr P rlla(nd Professor of Electrical Engineering Signature redacted Thesis Supervisor Certified by ..... ..................... Simon Gustavsson Research Scientist Signature redacted Thesis Co-Supervisor Accepted by..... Professor Nergis Mavalvala Senior Thesis Coordinator, Department of Physics Higher Levels of the Transmon Qubit by Samuel James Bader Submitted to the Department of Physics on May 9, 2014, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Physics Abstract This thesis discusses recent experimental work in measuring the properties of higher levels in transmon qubit systems. The first part includes a thorough overview of transmon devices, explaining the principles of the device design, the transmon Hamiltonian, and general Cir- cuit Quantum Electrodynamics concepts and methodology. The second part discusses the experimental setup and methods employed in measuring the higher levels of these systems, and the details of the simulation used to explain and predict the properties of these levels. Thesis Supervisor: Terry P. Orlando Title: Professor of Electrical Engineering Thesis Supervisor: Simon Gustavsson Title: Research Scientist 3 4 Acknowledgments I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • In Situ Quantum Control Over Superconducting Qubits
    ! In situ quantum control over superconducting qubits Anatoly Kulikov M.Sc. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2020 School of Mathematics and Physics ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQuS) ABSTRACT In the last decade, quantum information processing has transformed from a field of mostly academic research to an applied engineering subfield with many commercial companies an- nouncing strategies to achieve quantum advantage and construct a useful universal quantum computer. Continuing efforts to improve qubit lifetime, control techniques, materials and fab- rication methods together with exploring ways to scale up the architecture have culminated in the recent achievement of quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting proces- sor { a major milestone in quantum computing en route to useful devices. Marking the point when for the first time a quantum processor can outperform the best classical supercomputer, it heralds a new era in computer science, technology and information processing. One of the key developments enabling this transition to happen is the ability to exert more precise control over quantum bits and the ability to detect and mitigate control errors and imperfections. In this thesis, ways to efficiently control superconducting qubits are explored from the experimental viewpoint. We introduce a state-of-the-art experimental machinery enabling one to perform one- and two-qubit gates focusing on the technical aspect and outlining some guidelines for its efficient operation. We describe the software stack from the time alignment of control pulses and triggers to the data processing organisation. We then bring in the standard qubit manipulation and readout methods and proceed to describe some of the more advanced optimal control and calibration techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing for Undergraduates: a True STEAM Case
    Lat. Am. J. Sci. Educ. 6, 22030 (2019) Latin American Journal of Science Education www.lajse.org Quantum Computing for Undergraduates: a true STEAM case a b c César B. Cevallos , Manuel Álvarez Alvarado , and Celso L. Ladera a Instituto de Ciencias Básicas, Dpto. de Física, Universidad Técnica de Manabí, Portoviejo, Provincia de Manabí, Ecuador b Facultad de Ingeniería en Electricidad y Computación, Escuela Politécnica del Litoral, Guayaquil. Ecuador c Departamento de Física, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Valle de Sartenejas, Caracas 1089, Venezuela A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Received: Agosto 15, 2019 The first quantum computers of 5-20 superconducting qubits are now available for free Accepted: September 20, 2019 through the Cloud for anyone who wants to implement arrays of logical gates, and eventually Available on-line: Junio 6, 2019 to program advanced computer algorithms. The latter to be eventually used in solving Combinatorial Optimization problems, in Cryptography or for cracking complex Keywords: STEAM, quantum computational chemistry problems, which cannot be either programmed or solved using computer, engineering curriculum, classical computers based on present semiconductor electronics. Moreover, Quantum physics curriculum. Advantage, i.e. computational power beyond that of conventional computers seems to be within our reach in less than one year from now (June 2018). It does seem unlikely that these E-mail addresses: new fast computers, based on quantum mechanics and superconducting technology, will ever [email protected] become laptop-like. Yet, within a decade or less, their physics, technology and programming [email protected] will forcefully become part, of the undergraduate curriculae of Physics, Electronics, Material [email protected] Science, and Computer Science: it is indeed a subject that embraces Sciences, Advanced Technologies and even Art e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Phase Qubits
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Superconducting Phase Qubits John M. Martinis Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Experimental progress is reviewed for superconducting phase qubit research at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The phase qubit has a potential ad- vantage of scalability, based on the low impedance of the device and the ability to microfabricate complex \quantum integrated circuits". Single and coupled qubit ex- periments, including qubits coupled to resonators, are reviewed along with a discus- sion of the strategy leading to these experiments. All currently known sources of qubit decoherence are summarized, including energy decay (T1), dephasing (T2), and mea- surement errors. A detailed description is given for our fabrication process and control electronics, which is directly scalable. With the demonstration of the basic operations needed for quantum computation, more complex algorithms are now within reach. Keywords quantum computation ¢ qubits ¢ superconductivity ¢ decoherence 1 Introduction Superconducting qubits are a unique and interesting approach to quantum computation because they naturally allow strong coupling. Compared to other qubit implementa- tions, they are physically large, from » 1 ¹m to » 100 ¹m in size, with interconnection topology and strength set by simple circuit wiring. Superconducting qubits have the advantage of scalability, as complex circuits can be constructed using well established integrated-circuit microfabrication technology. A key component of superconducting qubits is the Josephson junction, which can be thought of as an inductor with strong non-linearity and negligible energy loss. Combined with a capacitance, coming from the tunnel junction itself or an external element, a inductor-capacitor resonator is formed that exhibits non-linearity even at the single photon level.
    [Show full text]
  • SOLID STATE QUANTUM BIT CIRCUITS Daniel Esteve and Denis
    SOLID STATE QUANTUM BIT CIRCUITS Daniel Esteve and Denis Vion Quantronics, SPEC, CEA-Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France 1 Contents 1. Why solid state quantum bits? 5 1.1. From quantum mechanics to quantum machines 5 1.2. Quantum processors based on qubits 7 1.3. Atom and ion versus solid state qubits 9 1.4. Electronic qubits 9 2. qubits in semiconductor structures 10 2.1. Kane’s proposal: nuclear spins of P impurities in silicon 10 2.2. Electron spins in quantum dots 10 2.3. Charge states in quantum dots 12 2.4. Flying qubits 12 3. Superconducting qubit circuits 13 3.1. Josephson qubits 14 3.1.1. Hamiltonian of Josephson qubit circuits 15 3.1.2. The single Cooper pair box 15 3.1.3. Survey of Cooper pair box experiments 16 3.2. How to maintain quantum coherence? 17 3.2.1. Qubit-environment coupling Hamiltonian 18 3.2.2. Relaxation 18 3.2.3. Decoherence: relaxation + dephasing 19 3.2.4. The optimal working point strategy 20 4. The quantronium circuit 20 4.1. Relaxation and dephasing in the quantronium 21 4.2. Readout 22 4.2.1. Switching readout 23 4.2.2. AC methods for QND readout 24 5. Coherent control of the qubit 25 5.1. Ultrafast ’DC’ pulses versus resonant microwave pulses 25 5.2. NMR-like control of a qubit 26 6. Probing qubit coherence 28 6.1. Relaxation 29 6.2. Decoherence during free evolution 29 6.3. Decoherence during driven evolution 32 7. Qubit coupling schemes 32 7.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Target-Qubit Unconventional Geometric Phase Gate in a Multi-Cavity System
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Multi-target-qubit unconventional geometric phase gate in a multi- cavity system Received: 24 June 2015 Tong Liu, Xiao-Zhi Cao, Qi-Ping Su, Shao-Jie Xiong & Chui-Ping Yang Accepted: 25 January 2016 Cavity-based large scale quantum information processing (QIP) may involve multiple cavities and Published: 22 February 2016 require performing various quantum logic operations on qubits distributed in different cavities. Geometric-phase-based quantum computing has drawn much attention recently, which offers advantages against inaccuracies and local fluctuations. In addition, multiqubit gates are particularly appealing and play important roles in QIP. We here present a simple and efficient scheme for realizing a multi-target-qubit unconventional geometric phase gate in a multi-cavity system. This multiqubit phase gate has a common control qubit but different target qubits distributed in different cavities, which can be achieved using a single-step operation. The gate operation time is independent of the number of qubits and only two levels for each qubit are needed. This multiqubit gate is generic, e.g., by performing single-qubit operations, it can be converted into two types of significant multi-target-qubit phase gates useful in QIP. The proposal is quite general, which can be used to accomplish the same task for a general type of qubits such as atoms, NV centers, quantum dots, and superconducting qubits. Multiqubit gates are particularly appealing and have been considered as an attractive building block for quantum information processing (QIP). In parallel to Shor algorithm1, Grover/Long algorithm2,3, quantum simulations, such as analogue quantum simulation4 and digital quantum simulation5, are also important QIP tasks where con- trolled quantum gates play important roles.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Title Josephson Scanning Tunneling Microscopy
    Title Josephson scanning tunneling microscopy – a local and direct probe of the superconducting order parameter Authors Hikari Kimura1,2,†, R. P. Barber, Jr.3, S. Ono4, Yoichi Ando5, and R. C. Dynes1,2,6* 1Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 2Materials Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA 3Department of Physics, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California 95053, USA 4Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Komae, Tokyo 201-8511, Japan 5Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan 6Department of Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0319 *[email protected] †Present address: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, USA Abstract Direct measurements of the superconducting superfluid on the surface of vacuum-cleaved Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (BSCCO) samples are reported. These measurements are accomplished via Josephson tunneling into the sample using a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) equipped with a superconducting tip. The spatial resolution of the STM of lateral distances less than the superconducting coherence length allows it to reveal local inhomogeneities in the pair wavefunction of the BSCCO. Instrument performance is demonstrated first with Josephson 1 measurements of Pb films followed by the layered superconductor NbSe2. The relevant measurement parameter, the Josephson ICRN product, is discussed within the context of both BCS superconductors and the high transition temperature superconductors. The local relationship between the ICRN product and the quasiparticle density of states (DOS) gap are presented within the context of phase diagrams for BSCCO. Excessive current densities can be produced with these measurements and have been found to alter the local DOS in the BSCCO.
    [Show full text]
  • EE214/PHYS220 Quantum Computing Lecture 1: Introduction Textbook: N
    EE214/PHYS220 Quantum Computing Lecture 1: Introduction Textbook: N. D. Mermin, Quantum computer science (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007) (errata at http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/mermin/errata-1-12-12.pdf); http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/mermin/qcomp/CS483.html (lecture notes) Other resources: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/ph219/ (lecture notes, Caltech course) http://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs191 (lecture notes, UC Berkeley course) M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000) G. Benenti, G. Casati, and G. Strini, Principles of Quantum Computation and Information, Vol. I: Basic Concepts (World Scientific, 2005) Prospects for Quantum Computing (QC): not really clear Pessimistic view: never, possibly limited to very small QCs as servers for quantum cryptography networks Optimistic view: in 20-50 years large-scale QCs, capable of factoring large integers Very optimistic (overoptimistic): will partially or completely replace general-purpose computers What QC can do efficiently 1) Factoring large integers (exponential speedup) Best classical: exp[ log / ], 1 3 more∼ accurately exp log log log , log base 2 1⁄3 64 2⁄3 Quantum: log (Shor’s∼ algorithm)9 2) Search in unsorted database3 (quadratic speedup) ∼ Classical: (simply check all) Quantum: (Grover’s algorithm) ∼ 3) Simulation of quantum∼ systems (for study of materials, etc.) 4) Possibly something else important (still area of active research) Current status: numbers 15 and 21 “factored” (also 143 with adiabatic QC) 14 well-entangled qubits (trapped ions, 2011), <25 qubits quantum algorithms with 9 superconducting qubits (2015), 1,000 D-Wave “qubits” Truly interdisciplinary effort: physics, engineering, computer science, mathematics Classical vs.
    [Show full text]